Back
2008 Supreme(Raj) 1204
[Citation : 2009(2) RLW 1789 (Raj.)]
(Rajasthan High Court)
Jaipur Bench
Prahlad Singh Vs. Suraj Mal & Ors. (Singh, J.)
HONBLE DALIP SINGH, J.
Prahlad Singh
Versus
Suraj Mal & Ors.
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5812 of 2004, decided on 25.11.2008
Shailesh Prakash Sharma, for Appellant;
None present for Respondents
Headnote:C.P.C., Order 41 Rule 27 — Producing additional evidence/document at appellate stage — Meaning and scope — During pendency of appeal plaintiff filed application for taking on record transliterate Hindi translation of the registered sale deed which was already on record but was in Urdu Language which was relied upon and the title of property was based on it — Rejected — Held — The provisions of Order 41 Rule 27 CPC are not strictly applicable as it is not a case where any additional evidence was sought to be produced by appellant which had not been filed before the trial Court and was being sought to be filed for the first time in the appeal — The original character of the document has been retained, merely the script appears to have been changed from Urdu to Devanagari in Hindi — It is always open for the Court to take recourse of Rule 37 of the General Rules (Civil), 1986. (Paras 19 to 26)
Writ petition allowed.
fl-iz-la-] vknsk 41 fu;e 27 & vihyh; voLFkk esa vfrfjDr lk{;@nLrkost izLrqr djuk & vFkZ vkSj O;kfIr & vihy yfEcr jgus ds nkSjku oknh us ml iaftd`r foØ; foys[k dk fgUnh :ikUrj.k fyI;Urj.k vfHkys[k ij ysus gsrq vkosnu nk;j fd;k tks fd mnwZ Hkk"kk esa igys ls gh vfHkys[k ij ekStwn Fkh vkSj ml ij fookl fd;k x;k o lEifr dk LoRo vk/kkfjr fd;k x;k & [kkfjt gqvk & bl ekeys esa vknsk 41 fu;e 27 ds izko/kku l[rh iwoZd ykxw gksus ;ksX; ugha D;ksafd ;g dksbZ ,slk ekeyk ugha ftlesa vihykFkhZ }kjk fdlh vfrfjDr lk{; dks isk djuk pkgk x;k gks ftls iwoZ esa fopkj.k U;k;ky; ds le{k isk ugha fd;k x;k gks vkSj vihy esa igyh ckj isk djus gsrq fuosnu fd;k tk jgk gks & nLrkost dk ewy Lo:i ;Fkkor j[kk x;k gS ek= mldh fyfi dks mnwZ ls nsoukxjh fgUnh esa ifjofrZr dh xbZ gS & U;k;ky; lkekU; fu;e ?nhokuh?] 1986 ds fu;e 37 dk vkJ; ysus gsrq lnSo gh LorU= gSA ?in la[;k 19 ls 26?
;kfpdk Lohdkj dhA
.
Key Points: - The provisions of Order 41 Rule 27 CPC are not strictly applicable when the appellant seeks to file a translated version of a document already on record, and not additional evidence (!) . - The original character of the document is retained where only the script is changed from Urdu to Devanagari, and this does not amount to producing additional evidence (!) . - Under Rule 37, a document not written in Hindi or English must be accompanied by a correct translation in Devanagari script with a certificate of correctness (!) . - The translation must bear a certificate by the party’s counsel that it is correct, or otherwise be certified by a person appointed by the court at the cost of the concerned party (!) . - The court may examine or compare the translation or appoint a translator if the correctness is challenged, even if the document is a transliteration rather than an interpretation (!) . - The appellate court erred in applying Order 41 Rule 27 CPC afresh without reviewing its earlier order allowing the translation, and committed a jurisdictional error (!) . - The writ petition is allowed and the impugned order is set aside, with no order as to costs since no respondent appeared (!) .
How to file a translated document at an appellate stage when the original is in a non-Hindi/non-English language?
What is the scope of Order 41 Rule 27 CPC in appeal regarding additional evidence?
What are the requirements under Rule 37 for translating documents into Hindi?
2. The plaintiff filed a suit for permanent injunction which came to be dismissed by the learned trial court vide judgment and decree dated 06.09.1998 and an appeal came to be filed which is pending before the learned lower appellate court. In the suit the plaintiff relied upon a registered sale-deed dated 26.07.1926 (Annexure-1) executed by one Bhanwaria and based his title in the property upon the said sale-deed. The said registered sale-deed, it may be mentioned here, is in Urdu script and language, as would be evident from the perusal of Annexure-1, a photostat copy of the sale-deed dated 26.07.1926 which has been filed before this court also and annexed to this writ petition.
3. After filing of the appeal against the dismissal of suit by the learned trial court vide judgment and decree dated 03.08.1998, the plaintiff-petitioner submitted an application under Order 41 Rule 27 C.P.C., though specifically the said provision has not been mentioned in the said application, copy of which has been filed as Annexure-2 on record, with prayer that the plaintiff had during the trial filed a copy of the registered sale-deed which is written in Urdu script and with a view to facilitate the court to peruse and go through the contents of the said document, the appellant is filing a correct translation of the same in Devanagari script having translated the document from Urdu script to Devanagari script (in Hindi). It was prayed that the said document which is a translation in Devanagari script may be taken on record.
4. An additional copy of the document which was retained by the petitioner apart from the one which has been filed before the learned appellate court prepared from the same process, as per the learned counsel for the petitioner, has been filed before this court as Annexure-3.
5. The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the matter was taken up by the court on 10.09.1998, after the application came to be filed on 03.08.1998 and the counsel for the parties did not appear, as is evident from the order-sheets dated 10.09.1998 that the Advocates were on strike and only the plaintiff-appellant who is the petitioner before this court was present and the learned appellate court. passed the order on 10.09.1998 allowing the application dated 03.08.1998 filed under Order 41 Rule 27 C.P.C. by the said order dated 10.09.1998 which has been filed as Annexure-4.
6. Since the learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon the aforesaid order dated 10.09.1998, it is relevant to reproduce the same. The order dated 10.09.1998 reads as follows:-
^^odqyk; Qjhdsu ckotwn vkoktksa ds xSj gkftj gS vihykFkhZ Lo;a gkftj gS vihykFkhZ ds vykok izR;FkhZ dh vksj ls dksbZ gkftj ugha gSA vihykFkhZ dks vihykFkhZ ds izkFkZuk i= 3-8-98 vUrxZr vknsk 41 fu;e 27 lh-ih-lh- ij lquk x;k i=koyh dk voyksdu fd;k x;kA vihykFkhZ izkFkZuk i= ds ek/;e ls v/khuLFk U;k;ky; ds le{k iznfkZr nLrkost iznkZ 1,] tks fd mnZw esa gS ds fgUnh :ikUrj.k dks fjdkMZ ij ykuk pkgrk gS esjs er esa izkFkZuk i= Lohdkj fd;s tkus ;ksX; gS pwafd tks nLrkost vihykFkhZ izLrqr djuk pkgrk gS mldk ewy igys ls gh fjdkMZ ij gS dsoy :ikUrj.k gh isk fd;k x;k gS tks fd fjdkMZ ij ysus ls U;k;ky; dks Hkh fu.kZ; djus esa lgk;d gksxkA vr% izkFkhZ vihykFkhZ dk izkFkZuk i= fnukad 3-9-98 tks vknsk 41 fu;e 27 lh-ih-lh- Lohdkj fd;k tkdj izkFkZuk i= ds lkFk layXu nLrkost dks fjdkMZ ij fy;k tkrk gSA i=koyh okLrs cgl fnukad 31-10-98 dks isk gksaA**
7. As would be evident from the above, the application dated 03.08.1998 was allowed and the translated version of the sale-deed which was filed along with the application dated 03.08.1998 was ordered to be taken on record by the learned appellate court vide the above order dated 10.09.19
